The Case for Evidence-Based Free Exercise Accommodation: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Is Bad Public Policy

\\jciprod01\productn\H\HLP\9-1\HLP102.txt unknown Seq: 1 18-MAR-15 13:09 The Case for Evidence-Based Free Exercise Accommodation: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Is Bad Public Policy Marci A. Hamilton* INTRODUCTION Transparency in lawmaking increases the accountability of representa- tives to the public, encourages frank debate about specifics, reveals hidden lobbyist agendas, and reduces unintended consequences. Neither representa- tives primarily motivated by a desire to stay in power nor special interests embrace transparency, making it an elusive goal but still a measure of a good public policy process.1 On these public policy metrics, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s (“RFRA”)2 process, content, and impact fail. RFRA was enacted by Congress on the basis of a disingenuous title; it was misleadingly presented as a benevolent law for religious actors who suffer discrimination and whose actions were benign; its operative provi- sions contain legalistic, opaque text; and it has yielded results that could not have been imagined by the members of Congress.3 This article examines the policy and lawmaking flaws in RFRA to show that there is a better way to achieve religious accommodation, which is through legislative or executive accommodation based on facts and evidence. In this article, I will first describe the Supreme Court’s Constitution- based religious accommodation jurisprudence before the first RFRA statute * Marci A. Hamilton holds the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Car- dozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. I thank my students Alyssa Figueroa, Tammy Lam, Brett Bacon, Anthony Faranda, and Adi Assouline for their excellent research assistance as well as the editors of the Harvard Law & Policy Review, who provided excellent editing. I am especially grateful to Professors John DiIulio, Fred Gedicks, Leslie Griffin, and David Schoen- brod, as well as Rita Swan, Andrea Moore-Emmett, Barbara Blaine, and Janet Heimlich, whose conversations, insights, and wisdom have enriched the views in this draft immeasurably. 1 See generally DAVID SCHOENBROD, SAVING OUR ENVIRONMENT FROM WASHINGTON: HOW CONGRESS GRABS POWER, SHIRKS RESPONSIBILITY, AND SHORTCHANGES THE PEOPLE (2006); DAVID SCHOENBROD, POWER WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY: HOW CONGRESS ABUSES THE PEOPLE THROUGH DELEGATION (1995). 2 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb to bb-4 (2006). 3 It is also unconstitutional, but that is a matter for another forum and article. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997); Brief of The Freedom From Religion Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting the Petitioner, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (No. 13–354), 2014 WL 333897; Joanne C. Brant, Taking the Supreme Court at Its Word: The Implications for RFRA and Separation of Powers, 56 MONT. L. REV. 5, 6 (1995); Christopher L. Eisgruber & Lawrence G. Sager, Why the Religious Freedom Restora- tion Act is Unconstitutional, 69 N.Y.U. L. REV. 437, 469–70 (1994); Marci A. Hamilton, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is Unconstitutional, Period, 1 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 1 (1998). \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLP\9-1\HLP102.txt unknown Seq: 2 18-MAR-15 13:09 130 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 9 was enacted. Second, I will describe RFRA’s features and enactment, which violate widely-accepted principles of transparency. Third, I will describe the negative unintended (and intended) consequences of RFRA. Finally, I will propose an evidence-based approach to religious accommodation, which is a superior process for achieving sound public policy and the common good. In a nutshell, my proposal requires two initial steps: (1) repeal RFRA and, therefore, (2) return free exercise cases to the Court’s longstanding First Amendment jurisprudence, which provided ample room for legislative and executive accommodation involving a specific practice and a specific law. Once these legal repairs have been accomplished, the accommodation process should strive for greater accountability and transparency, meaning that legislators would take a more responsible position on the potential impact of the proposed accommodation by ascertaining: (1) the laws to be affected; (2) who is seeking to avoid their obligations under the law and for what practice; (3) who would be harmed by the proposed accommodation; and (4) the views of experts in the field and the public. The bottom line is that the fed- eral and state RFRAs have been passed through ignorance, with only religious organizations knowing what laws they intend to break with a RFRA. Legislators have an obligation to all of their constituents, religious or not, and particularly to those they might be harming unknowingly. The proposal in this article is intended to create a more just process and one that shields victims of religious conduct, of which there are many. I. THE SUPREME COURT’S RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION JURISPRUDENCE BEFORE RFRA Under the Supreme Court’s approach to rights generally, which it often calls “ordered liberty,”4 the Court has held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause subjects a neutral, generally applicable law to rationality review.5 Although the Court has not yet precisely defined these terms, generally speaking, a “neutral” law is non-discriminatory and a “generally applicable law” treats all those who take the same action identically. Therefore, unless a neutral, generally applicable law is based on animus or is arbitrary, which is the ordinary means of invalidating laws on rationality review,6 the believer must obey the law just like everyone else. But if the law is discriminatory or treats the same actions differently based on whether they are relig- iously motivated, strict scrutiny applies. The cases, however, do not paint a full portrait of religious accommodation in the United States, where there is 4 See e.g., Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 180 (2003); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325–28 (1937) (wherein Justice Cardozo coined the phrase). 5 See Emp’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 884–85 (1990). 6 See, e.g., City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLP\9-1\HLP102.txt unknown Seq: 3 18-MAR-15 13:09 2015] Evidence-Based Free Exercise Accommodation 131 a long history of legislative and executive accommodation starting with the Quakers’ ability to avoid conscription into military service.7 A. Analysis of Neutral and Generally Applicable Laws Under Rationality Review and Subsequent Accommodation In 1990, the Supreme Court took the opportunity in Employment Divi- sion v. Smith to survey its past free exercise doctrine and to explain the constitutional standard to be applied to laws that burden religious conduct.8 The Smith majority—which was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Byron White, John Paul Stevens, and Anthony Kennedy—summarized the Court’s prior doctrine accurately, stating that the “vast majority” of the Court’s cases had not applied strict scrutiny to neutral, generally applicable laws.9 The Court has consistently followed this reasoning that religious actors are obligated to obey the laws that govern everyone else and that no one may be a law unto oneself.10 Smith is the leading case on the treatment of neutral, generally applicable laws. In Smith, employees of a private drug rehabilitation organization were fired for using peyote, a drug illegal under the state controlled sub- stance law, during a ceremony of their Native American Church; Oregon denied them unemployment compensation because, under Oregon state law, employees could not receive such compensation if fired for employment- related misconduct.11 The drug laws and the unemployment compensation system were neutral and generally applicable; therefore, the Court applied rationality review and held that the drug counselors did not have a constitutional right to use an illegal drug in violation of their employment require- ments, and, therefore, they could not get unemployment compensation.12 The Smith facts are admittedly complicated, so a more straightforward example of a neutral, generally applicable law being applied to a religious believer is in order: if a driver is stopped for speeding, the fact that she is a believer or that she is late for church does not relieve her of the obligation to abide by speed limits. Similarly, the religious organization that negligently or recklessly puts children at risk of pedophile employees in violation of ordinary tort law is not shielded by the First Amendment.13 The Court has 7 See Seeger v. United States, 380 U.S. 163, 169–73 (1965). 8 See Smith, 494 U.S. at 877–82. 9 See id. at 885. 10 See, e.g., id. at 879; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166–67 (1878). 11 Smith, 494 U.S. at 874. 12 See id. at 890. 13 See, e.g., Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 1999); Doe v. St. John’s Episcopal Parish Day Sch., Inc., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1289–90 (M.D. Fla. 2014); Colomb v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, Inc., No. 2:10- CV-254, 2012 WL 4479758, at *6 (D. Vt. Sept. 28, 2012); Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Or., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1138 (D. Or. 2010); Mary Doe SD v. The Salvation Army, No. 4:07CV362MLM, 2007 WL 2757119, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2007); Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 268 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Conn. 2003); Smith v. \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLP\9-1\HLP102.txt unknown Seq: 4 18-MAR-15 13:09 132 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol.

Load more